Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 25 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 27 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
i was havng a conversation the other day and my father kept incisting that weddings , (as in the union of 2 or more person for the rest of their lives) has always been in all societies , ever . i dont belive this but i dont know much about the history of more than 2000 years ago.
I know this is a long shot, but I've been searching for any kind of music notation for a piece of music by Conlon Nancarrow called Boogie-Woogie Suite (later assigned the name Study No. 3 a-e). Nancarrow composed it for player piano, and I'm not sure there is any score of the music other than the original piano roll. Still I've searched for some kind of printed notation, but no luck. I'd even be happy to acquire something like scanned images of the piano rolls. So my question is -- can anyone help me find any kind of notated form of Nancarrow's Boogie-Woogie Suite? Thanks. Pfly 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: |
What were the exact circumstances behind the death of the prince imperial, son of Napoleon III, in the zulu war of 1879? Bryson Bill 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
With the recent Le Tour de France doping controversy, I got to thinking. I've read the reason for these homologous transfusion discoveries may be mistakes, they were supposed to transfuse their own blood but there was a mixup and transfused someone else's. This go me thinking, if this sort of thing happens, has there been any cases when sports people have either died or at least required treatment due a mixup and the transfusion incompatible donor? It would seem not that unlikely given that I would guess they don't bother to test the blood if they think it's theirs. Nil Einne 12:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Karl Marx spent a good bit of his life living in England. Much of his work is based on research he carried out in the British Library. There is a little in your page about about Marx on his life in England, but it would be interesting to learn some more, on his personal experience, his reaction to British politics and so on. Did he hope, for example, that their would be a revolution; how did he see the chartists and the rise of the trade unions and so on? Sorry if this seems too much of a tall order but all information would be gratefully received. Tower Raven 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Marx in London: boils on his backside, harvested from hours spent in the reading room of the British Libary, an afflication for which he swore that the capitalists would pay!
Marx and family arrived in England in August 1849, settling in Dean Street, in the Soho district of London. He arrived with high expectations that the 'British Revolution', long in gestation, was shortly to be born. After all, this was the most industrialised country in Europe with the biggest proletariat. He placed particular faith in the Chartists, a mass movement which aimed at the democratic reform of the whole British political process. Before arriving he had written "The most civilized land, the land whose industry is the most developed, whose bourgeoisie is the most powerful, where the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are divided in the sharpest fashion and stand most decisively opposed to one another, will be the first to witness the emancipation of the workers of all lands. That land is England.".
Chartism, however, was not to be the vehicle of emancipation. Already in decline when Marx arrived, he held on to his unrealistic hopes as long as he could, but eventually agreed with Engels, who had a far better understanding of English politics, that the proletarian movement "...in its old traditional Chartist form must perish completely before it can develop in a new vital form."
This, in fact, is a key moment in Marx's personal and intellectual evolution; of the transformation of the young optimist into the ponderous critic of capitalism. A new crisis would come, that was always his belief, but if the revolutionry phoenix was to arise it would only do so through a proper understanding of the "law of motion of capitalist society." Das Kapital, volume one of which appeared in 1867, is not an analysis of capitalism in general: it is an analysis of English capitalism, or at least it is from this that he draws most of his practical examples. However, just as the English economy encouraged Marx in his model of historical development, his observations of English politics made him increasingly pessimistic. And here we have the key to the very thing that was to perplex not just Marx but generations of Marxists thereafter: namely, what was the precise relationship between objective economic forces and subjective revolutionary action? English capitalism may have been 'classic'; but English politics and the English working class was 'unclassic' in every degree!
The greatest puzzle for Marx was that England's political clothes simply did not fit its economic body, at least in the terms his theory prescribed. For Marx parliamentary republicanism was the political form best suited to advanced capitalism; but England retained not just a monarchy but a powerful aristocracy, which should have passed away with feudalism. It was the capacity of the English to absorb change without revolution that perplexed him most. England had a capacity for reform which;
...neither creates anything new, nor abolishes anything old, but merely aims at confirming the old system by giving it a more reasonable form and teaching it, so to say, new manners. This is the mystery of the 'hereditary wisdom' of the English oligarchical legislation. It simply consists in making abuses hereditary, by refreshing them, as it were, from time to time, by the infusion of new blood.
It was the English working class, which preferred to work within the existing system, that was to cause him his greatest annoyance, particularly in its support for the bourgeois Liberal party, parliamentary reform, moderate trade unions and the co-operative movement. The English had all the material necessary for a revolution but what they lacked was "the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary fervour." He became ever more pessimistic, towards the end of his life, seeing the English working class as no more than the 'tail' of the Liberal Party. Worse still, he came to agree with Engels that the English proletariat "was becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie."
Alas the 'Red Doctor', as he came to be referred to in the British press after the Paris Commune, never understood the country he lived in for over thirty years of his life. His last recorded words were "To the devil with the British." Ah, well; Marx is dead, but capitalism lives! Clio the Muse 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Which king said to his soldiers in battle 'rouges do you want to live forever?' SeanScotland 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The exact quotation is Ihr Racker, wollt ihr ewig leben?, (Rascals, do you want to live forever?) words Frederick shouted at the Prussian Guard Regiment after it hesitated to advance at the Battle of Kolin in June 1757, one of the engagements of the Seven Years War. Clio the Muse 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been repeated famously many times, such as 1st Sgt. Dan Daly in the Battle of Belleau Wood, June 1918. Daly, who had received 2 Congressional Medals of Honor prior to World War 1, finding his men "besieged, outnumbered, outgunned, and pinned down,.. led his men in attack, shouting, 'Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?'" Those Marines sure know how to quote famous kings. The Daly article attributes the original quotation as above to "Friedrich der Große" on 18 June 1757 at the Battle of Kolin, "Kerls, wollt ihr denn ewig leben?" Oddly, I did not see it in the article about Frederick the Great. Edison 06:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
i am just trying this out so my question is who created the verizon wireless company?
This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: |
From the news: "On July 17, the remembrance day of the Russian Royal Family, the Union of Orthodox citizens prayed for renaming of the metro station Voikovskaya that was named after Peter Voikov, a Soviet commissar who was directly relevant to the death of Nicholas II of Russia and their family."[2]
I'm seeking details about Voikov's involvement in the regicide/infanticide in order to incorporate them into our article. All I know is that this former Menshevik was killed in Warsaw and lies buried on Red Square. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Peter Voikov was born in 1888. The son of a mining engineer, he became involved in revolutionary activity at an early age, and was expelled both from grammar school and later from the St. Petersburg Mining Institute. He went into exile in Switzerland, where he graduated from the University of Geneva. On returning to Russia in August 1917 he joined the Bolsheviks, and was appointed People's Commissar for Government Supply for the Ural region in 1918, where he was known by his party code name of 'Intellectual'. He subsequently became an important member of the Ural Soviet. He knew N. N. Ipatiev, and had visited the house before it was selected as the final residence of the Romanovs. It seems to have been on the basis of information supplied by Voikhov that Ipatiev was summoned to the office of the Soviet at the end of April 1918 and ordered to vacate what was soon to be called 'The House of Special Purpose.' Clearly party to the decision to murder the royal family, Voikov was given the specific task of arranging for the disposal of their remains, obtaining 150 gallons of gasoline and 400 pounds of sulphuric acid, the latter from the Ekaterinburg pharmacy. After the killings he was to declare that "The world will never know what we did with them." His role in the affair was fully investigated by the commission set up after the White Army captured Ekaterinburg from the Bolsheviks. Voikov was appointed Soviet ambassador to Poland in 1924, and was assassinated in Warsaw in 1927 by a Russian monarchist for his part in the killing of Nicholas and his family. You will find all of this information, Ghirla, in The Last Tsar: the Life and Death of Nicholas II by Edvard Radzinsky and Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie. If you need the page references please let me know. Clio the Muse 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the article on this - it is one of the most important political organizations in China, the two most recent presidents were members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.98.44 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 July 2007